Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Hood
Filing
11
Order re: 10 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting filed by Branch Banking and Trust Company, ( Scheduling Conference, via telephone, set for 2/7/2018 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray.) To access the telephone conference, the parties' attorneys are to use the following numbers: CALL IN 877-873-8018 ACCESS CODE 3291819. Counsel for the parties are to be prepared to advise the courtroom deputy, before the undersigned takes the bench, whether there is a request for reassignment or whether the parties consent to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Signed by Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray on 1/24/2018. (eec)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JO ROGERS HOOD,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
CA 17-0446-MJ-MU
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the parties’ Rule 26(f) report, filed January 24,
2018 (Doc. 10). Although the parties have not requested a conference with the Court
before entry of the scheduling order (id. at 1), it is the undersigned’s belief that bringing
the parties and the Court together at this stage promotes efficiency in the litigation
process, helps avoid discovery disputes, provides a clearer path to pretrial resolution
and allows counsel to pose questions to the Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(1)(B)
(providing that a magistrate judge must issue a scheduling order “after consulting with
the parties’ attorneys . . . at a scheduling conference.”). A scheduling conference is
particularly appropriate in this case, which has landed on the undersigned’s opt-out
docket. (See Doc. 4.) Counsel for the parties will have the opportunity to confer with
their clients before the scheduling conference and thereby be prepared to advise the
courtroom deputy, before the undersigned takes the bench, whether there is a request
for reassignment or whether the parties consent to the undersigned conducting all
proceedings in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See id.)1
In light of the foregoing, this action shall come on for a Rule 16(b) scheduling
conference by telephone on February 7, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. To access the telephone
conference, the parties’ attorneys are to use the following numbers:
CALL IN
ACCESS CODE
877-873-8018
3291819
Conference participants are requested to abstain from using cell phones or the
conference option on landline phones due to their propensity to disrupt the recording
system.
DONE and ORDERED this the 24th day of January, 2018.
s/P. BRADLEY MURRAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
In addition, in light of the parties’ clear statement that discovery in this matter will
include electronically stored information (Doc. 10, at ¶ 12), counsel should be prepared to
discuss whether this case would benefit from entry of a consent order governing confidential
materials and discovery of ESI similar to that entered by United States Magistrate Judge William
E. Cassady in National Steel City, LLC v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, CA 13-00272-KD-C,
Doc. 39, Attachment A.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?